- Post
- #1186556
- Topic
- Pirates of the Caribbean and the Political Correctness Craze
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1186556/action/topic#1186556
- Time
Eh, the movie is about cheap thrills and space action. It’s not like wanting to advertise First Blood without weaponry because there’s more to the Rambo character (in that movie) than violence.
First Blood is a really bad example, I take it you haven’t seen that film in awhile - it’d actually more sense if Rambo didn’t have a machine gun on the poster.
I know the movie. I’m saying that’s a movie that they wouldn’t want to advertise the violence in because there’s more to it than that.
Oh, I completely misread the comparison you were making (missed the word “not” in “it’s not like…”). My bad.
Anyway, I’m not saying they shouldn’t have guns on the poster, just saying it’s not that egregious if they don’t.
You don’t find it kind of uncomfortable that they delete things to avoid offending people? Granted, this isn’t art, it’s a marketing object, but it’s still close.
I don’t think it’s done to avoid “offending people.” The sight of guns doesn’t “offend” people (the word “offend” is misused way too often these days). It’s marketing materials, like you said. So the goal is to cater to the audience, if they think the audience is less likely to see it if every character is holding a gun, that’s a fair marketing move to make.
I get what you’re saying. I’m not bothered by this because it’s “censorship” because it’s not. I’m not bothered by it at all because it’s just marketing, but I think it’s a clear example of laziness. They want a character shot without a gun so they just erase the gun and have it look like crap. Ugly. Sad. Lazy.
Mhm. And like Wook says, Brazil has its own standards.
To Dom’s point, people care about these kinds of things more than they might when they perceive a political or social agenda at work, whether or not it’s true.
That doesn’t make the outrage any less silly.
I don’t think so, Dom.
If Disney changed the PotC ride decades ago in response to religious objections, I think people would be reasonably annoyed about it.
Depends what the alterations were. In the case of the most recent alteration to the ride, the reasoning could be construed as “the feminist agenda,” which absolutely makes the outrage silly (how dare we not demean women!). In the case of removing guns from a poster, the connection to an agenda is tenuous - some of these posters don’t feature characters with guns which means they’re promoting gun control? By that logic any poster that doesn’t feature guns is promoting gun control.
Can’t tell if you’re agreeing with me or not. Seems to me that both the agenda of those making a change as well as what the change is can reasonably bother people. If it’s not clear from my first post, this change to the Disney ride doesn’t bother me.
You frame the possible agenda here in positive terms so that any objector is a cretin. But the objection as I understand it has to do with political correctness and a view that the old ride didn’t demean women. People can argue that amongst themselves.
My initial statement (that if they’re outraged because of an agenda doesn’t make it any less silly), was in regards to the subjects in question. These particular outrages are silly, and that they think it’s because of an agenda doesn’t make it any less silly.
A silly hypothetical follows: Imagine they replaced the gold idol at the start of Raiders with a big diamond because the Bible says something about gold idols being bad. It would be a minor aesthetic change that doesn’t alter the story but it would really annoy me on multiple levels including the imposition of an ideology on a creative work. I’m not being absolutist, but that’s how I would feel about this kind of change. And I think that’s reasonable.
Is the theatrical cut of Raiders still available? If so, who cares? Would it be worse than the original?
Huh? the original version of Raiders is different than the theatrical cut of Raiders???
Obviously. So are the walkie talkies. But who cares?